Looking for game for Punic Wars and Gallic Warfare

[Vincent]

I'm new to this engine so I'd prefer if someone could help show me the ropes. Any scenario or rules are fine.

[Vincent]

51 views and not a single response?

I guess Ancient wars aren't popular for PBEM. Strange considering the AI is quite weak, in my opinion.

Has anyone ever considered adding a Field of Glory ladder here?

[Titus]

51 views and not a single response?

I guess Ancient wars aren't popular for PBEM. Strange considering the AI is quite weak, in my opinion.

Has anyone ever considered adding a Field of Glory ladder here?

Hi, Vincent - I will send you a PBEM game - I prefer Punic Wars so I will start by sending you one of my favourite small battles by e-mail.

[TJD]

51 views and not a single response?

I guess Ancient wars aren't popular for PBEM. Strange considering the AI is quite weak, in my opinion.

Has anyone ever considered adding a Field of Glory ladder here?

Vincent:

Suggest you look at the Wargamer forum for Ancient Warfare - that's where the action is. The Blitz, unfortunately, is practially dead.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tt.aspx?forumid=237

Klaus, Brian: given the little traffic here and your evident disinterest, I suggest that you give serious thought to closing this forum and redirecting traffic to the Wargamer.

Tim

[Vincent]

Will do, thanks for the responses.

[TJD]

Will do, thanks for the responses.

No problem. BTW, if you're looking for a game of Field of Glory, send me a note :)

Tim

[RADO]

51 views and not a single response?

I guess Ancient wars aren't popular for PBEM. Strange considering the AI is quite weak, in my opinion.

Has anyone ever considered adding a Field of Glory ladder here?

Vincent:

Suggest you look at the Wargamer forum for Ancient Warfare - that's where the action is. The Blitz, unfortunately, is practially dead.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tt.aspx?forumid=237

Klaus, Brian: given the little traffic here and your evident disinterest, I suggest that you give serious thought to closing this forum and redirecting traffic to the Wargamer.

Tim

Seems to me the other forum you mentioned appears pretty dead as it only had 9 new threads in Jan & two in Feb thus far. Could it be a measure of the popularity of the game, or lack of?

I played Punic Wars, Gallic Wars, and Alexander by HPS and IMHO there were a couple of significant issues within the system that needed addressing. I don't know if Paul has ever done so.

I thought that Punic Wars was excellent as it represented Roman organization as it existed at the time (maniples). Unfortunately, the game platform did not allow for restructuring of unit strengths to historical organization in other periods. In Caesar's time, the smallest "tactical unit" on the battlefield in the Roman army was the cohort of some 300 to 500 men. The maniple existed only "on paper" and maniples were not separate unit command designations (contrary to one of it's advocates by the name of Al).

The game allows you to combine maniples into larger untis but once done, the frontage is totally skewed because of the ground scale of the hexes (20 yards or 20 meters to the hex IIRC).

One other item that was being addressed when I was involved was the 3D zoom out view. I don't know if Paul & Dean ever got that done. As it was, the only "battlefield" view was zoom out in 2D, at which point all one had was a "boardgame". The 3D that was in the game was great, but was only available on a very tactical level.

Perhaps the biggest issue IMHO that needed to be addressed was the turn sequencing that required multiple emails back and forth for the resolution of a single turn. I felt that this needed to be revised so that a complete player turn be made in a single player iteration.

Paul has the basis of an excellent game system but IMHO, there were significant issues that needed to be addressed on the game platform before additional titles were produced and released, and that simply did not happen.

[TJD]

Seems to me the other forum you mentioned appears pretty dead as it only had 9 new threads in Jan & two in Feb thus far. Could it be a measure of the popularity of the game, or lack of?

"Dead" is relative. The threads at the Wargamer have been reasonably active in terms of number of posts. Certainly there is much more overall activity there than at the Blitz. A typical post at Wargamer will get 100 views in a day. You'll get only a few here.

I thought that Punic Wars was excellent as it represented Roman organization as it existed at the time (maniples). Unfortunately, the game platform did not allow for restructuring of unit strengths to historical organization in other periods. In Caesar's time, the smallest "tactical unit" on the battlefield in the Roman army was the cohort of some 300 to 500 men. The maniple existed only "on paper" and maniples were not separate unit command designations (contrary to one of it's advocates by the name of Al).

The game allows you to combine maniples into larger untis but once done, the frontage is totally skewed because of the ground scale of the hexes (20 yards or 20 meters to the hex IIRC).

A game design that puts the cohort as the smallest tactical unit will no longer be truly a tactical level game. It's certainly true that it's not reasonable on the game's scale to suppose that a cohort can be reduced to one hex. If you want a game on a fine scale like this, you have to be willing to break down the cohort. It's a fundamental design decision. If you feel that it violates the history of Roman military organization intolerably, fine, but you're essentially missing the point.

One other item that was being addressed when I was involved was the 3D zoom out view. I don't know if Paul & Dean ever got that done. As it was, the only "battlefield" view was zoom out in 2D, at which point all one had was a "boardgame". The 3D that was in the game was great, but was only available on a very tactical level.

This hasn't been fixed but it's not clear that it's a flaw. Personally, I can't play in 3D but the recent survey we did revealed that the 3D even as it currently exists is really popular and even vital to players.

Perhaps the biggest issue IMHO that needed to be addressed was the turn sequencing that required multiple emails back and forth for the resolution of a single turn. I felt that this needed to be revised so that a complete player turn be made in a single player iteration.

Again, this was a fundamental design decision. It goes ultimately to whether you like the games or not. You can't change the turn sequence without producing a fundamentally different game. So, if you don't like it, you have to decide whether you can live with it. It certainly took me quite a while to adjust to it and there's no question it put a lot of people off. And that's too bad. IMO it works quite well.

Paul has the basis of an excellent game system but IMHO, there were significant issues that needed to be addressed on the game platform before additional titles were produced and released, and that simply did not happen.

I don't think that's true. These games are a work in progress. Paul in my experience has been very responsive to useful criticism and has made very significant improvements and bug fixes. The progress has not been as fast any of us would like but you have to remember that Paul is working essentially alone, without any programming support. IMO it's remarkable that he has brought this series along as far as he has done, solo.

Tim

[RADO]

"A game design that puts the cohort as the smallest tactical unit will no longer be truly a tactical level game. It's certainly true that it's not reasonable on the game's scale to suppose that a cohort can be reduced to one hex. If you want a game on a fine scale like this, you have to be willing to break down the cohort. It's a fundamental design decision. If you feel that it violates the history of Roman military organization intolerably, fine, but you're essentially missing the point".

How do you figure? The tactics of the period were by cohort; period. Next up was the legion; period. The maniple no longer existed as a tactical unit on the battlefield.

Putting out a game that in no way represents the tactics or organization of the period is a serious design flaw. I pointed this out sometime back to Paul and that is when he told me about the programming issues and platform restrictions.

It seems that the issues that were prevalent with the design team back when I was involved have still not been addressed. That's a shame.
Paul had a real opportunity to produce a historical simulation that could give players the real feel of the great battles of antiquity. With Punic Wars, he did just that.

Unfortunately, it stopped there. Paul is a great guy, but for some reason he has continued down the road of the maniple, which the original concept was designed for, and it is only a very brief period in military history where the maniple was a consideration.

The entire game platform and engine needs to be reworked, and Paul was informed of this quite a bit back.

As it is, he has a game, which is in no way representative of the warfare of the period, for which much of the game covers.

That's a real shame.

[Titus]

Hi, Vincent.
The e-mail sequence you refer to earlier is designed to minimise cheating. It prevents you taking a move, allowing the action to play out, realising your first decision was disastrous then re-doing the move until you are happy with the result. The number of times the e-mail is passed back and forth is also a result of the 'we go' system. Now I know you would say you would never cheat but this has historically been a big issue on HPS games hence the e-mail game was designed to address this issue.
I note your view on the need for a 3D zoom out view and this has been partly developed. In the long term we hope to add this level to the game series.
Your comments on organisational structure and practices I will not challenge as I am an engineer not an historian. The platform was originally constructed for Punic Wars and once I retire I will be looking in to the creation of other games which may address this point.
Thank you for your comments and feedback. I would be particularly interested if you could offer alternative solutions as well as highlighting issues.
Regards,
Paul